Re: [Nea] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard

On 15 Jan 2013, at 00:21, Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net> wrote:

> Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for the guidance. As you recommend, we'll proceed
> without this change for now. If it becomes a problem,
> we'll cycle back and do the downref thing.

Grand. SM - I can put a note on the ballot so other ADs know about it.

S

> 
> Take care,
> 
> Steve
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 7:07 PM
>> To: Stephen Hanna
>> Cc: SM; nea@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Nea] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP:
>> Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed
>> Standard
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 01/14/2013 11:41 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
>>> SM wrote:
>>>> It's a matter of mentioning the down-ref in the Last Call
>> announcement.
>>> 
>>> I understand that we COULD request approval for a downward reference.
>>> We'd need to restart the IETF Last Call in order to do so but if
>> that's
>>> the right thing to do, we can do it.
>>> 
>>> I just don't see why we need a downref. Yes, you should understand
>> the
>>> NEA reference model while building an implementation of PT-EAP. You
>> also
>>> should understand the EAP architecture and PB-TNC and lots of other
>> things.
>>> That doesn't mean that all those things should be normative
>> references.
>>> RFC 5209 doesn't include ANY normative text that would affect
>> implementers
>>> of PT-EAP. An informative reference seems more appropriate to me. And
>>> that's what we did for all the other NEA specs (PA-TNC, PB-TNC, and
>>> PT-TLS). PB-TNC (RFC 5793) includes basically the same language as
>> PT-EAP:
>>> 
>>> 1.1.  Prerequisites
>>> 
>>>   This document does not define an architecture or reference model.
>>>   Instead, it defines a protocol that works within the reference
>> model
>>>   described in the NEA Requirements specification [8].  The reader
>> is
>>>   assumed to be thoroughly familiar with that document.  No
>> familiarity
>>>   with TCG specifications is assumed.
>>> 
>>> Still, I know that the IETF process can be unpredictable. If we
>>> now think that we need to have a normative reference in this spec,
>>> we can change it and run the IETF Last Call process again, requesting
>>> approval for a downref to RFC 5209.
>>> 
>>> What is the sense of the Working Group? Any guidance from the ADs?
>> 
>> I bet you know:-)
>> 
>> Ignore it and push on. If we get stuck then we go back to IETF LC
>> then and fix. The precedent in the WG should be enough to see it
>> through I'd say esp since PT-TLS is so recent (still in the RFC
>> editor queue) with precisely the same reference. Neither IETF
>> LC called out this out as a downref.
>> 
>> SM does have a point, but OTOH so do you, and yes the IESG is
>> fickle about stuff like this, and BCP97 doesn't really deal with
>> requirement or framework RFCs (I guess those are a subsequent
>> fad;-). And in this case, 5209 is requirements plus the
>> overview and I think you can credibly say that in reality a
>> coder who's gotten as far as coding up PT-EAP already does
>> know the overview, and the reqiurements are not relevant
>> for that coder, so this is a purely process problem if it
>> is a problem of any sort and does no harm to the Internet.
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net]
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:47 PM
>>>> To: Stephen Hanna
>>>> Cc: nea@ietf.org; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
>>>> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP:
>> Posture
>>>> Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>> At 14:17 14-01-2013, Stephen Hanna wrote:
>>>>> Changing our reference to RFC 5209 to be normative may cause
>>>>> more problems than it solves. As RFC 3967 (BCP 97) says,
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> From Section 1.1:
>>>> 
>>>>   "The reader is assumed to be thoroughly familiar with that
>>>>    document." (RFC 5209)
>>>> 
>>>>>> IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC
>>>>>> may not have a normative reference to another standards track
>>>>>> document at a lower maturity level or to a non standards track
>>>>>> specification (other than specifications from other standards
>>>>>> bodies). For example, a standards track document may not have
>>>>>> a normative reference to an informational RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> It's a matter of mentioning the down-ref in the Last Call
>> announcement.
>>>> 
>>>>> If I've missed something (e.g. a reason why the reference should
>>>>> be normative), please explain it more clearly.
>>>> 
>>>> See above.  I flagged it as the matter may be raised as an issue.  I
>>>> am ok with whatever the WG decides.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -sm
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nea mailing list
>>> Nea@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
> 
> 